“Today at the Worldwide Partner Conference in San Francisco, Microsoft’s chief operating officer, Kevin Turner, announced that Windows Server 2008 (previously known as Longhorn), Microsoft SQL Server 2008, and Visual Studio 2008 will be officially launched on February 27, 2008. This may come as a surprise to those following the Windows 2008 Server news closely, since most sources at Microsoft have been insisting that the next version of its server operating system will released at the very end of 2007. Apparently in Redmond there is a difference between releasing the OS and the extravagant product launches, which are more of a pep rally for the product then a technical presentation.”
My first impression would be that Microsoft is allowing a 90 day bug hunt between going gold and official launch. We saw something similar with business licenses and general release for Vista.
Server admins are likely to be less forgiving in regards to bugs, instability, driver problems, and software incompatibilities. Stability trumps gee-whiz for me…
Given Vista SP1 is likely to be released around the time of Server 08, and both OSs benefits from the updates, this watch and see approach would make sense for them.
I may upgrade some licenses before their software assurance benefits run out — at this point Server 2003 R2 is doing what it needs to without any problems.
I think the biggest problem is the delay with SQL server (and their other middleware); all the Microsoft software need to be up to scratch and working 100% perfectly on Server 2008.
Driver problems are third party problems, along with software maintained by lazy, money hungry third party vendors who refuse to release updates. What Microsoft can do is make sure their products are up to snuff and then able to be stand on the high horse and condemn those vendors who don’t have their act together.
True – there are also some cool features which end users will benefit from. With that being said, so far, defender has been useless for my brother – he was infected with malware, thats ok, ran the scanner, thats ok, it found it, cleared it, but it still remained; it never actually removed it!
Whats the point of bundling ‘defender’ if it fails to defend?
Just out of curiosity, what do you use your servers for – is there a particular role which demands that you use Windows over using a *NIX of some sort?
Sure, that would be an important component. Updating their middleware and giving the largest vendors ample time to get their software in the same position.
Driver problems are also end-user problems. Some devices or custom software may not ever be updated to a new system, and somewhere in an organization, that part of the system may just be maintained as is. NT/2000 installations still exist.
Yes – third party MIS/EHR software used in medicine. Competing systems are always emerging, some web based (internal or hosted), or using a SQL system that is OS agnostic. Many systems in the field (like the ones I’m responsible for), are Windows based though, and are written to non-portable DB products like MS SQL Server. One uses Advantage (iAnywhere) and another uses Oracle, but the supported configuration requires they be installed on Windows.
At first glance, the main benefits I can see coming from this new MS server OS are in the areas of security. Outside of AD, the rest of our business related ‘software services’ are provided by non-Microsoft software.
By the time Windows 2008 is released companies would have had almost three years to test their applications – if they’re choosing to waste company money on private jets and other privilous indulgences, if I was Microsoft, I would offer software to these customers at a deeply discounted price.
Better to offer a free replacement and a small loss in profit vs. losing face because a group of lazy third party software vendors can’t be bothered pullig finger and making sure their software works – given the huge amount of time they had to test their products.
Which means, one has to question the relationship between the organsiation who provided the hardware and software, and whether that relationship should continue. Put the supplier on the backfoot and make them realise who owes who a living.
True. I’m always surprised, and at times, disgusted when I see software companies who so readly sell their ‘soul’ whilst ignoring the position they put themselves into by being so heavily indebted to Microsoft for their long terms survival.
One questions whether it was necessary for the company who wrote the software to use MS SQL – could it have been done using SQLite as with the case of, for example, Solaris and Wincester Active Directory support – for instance.
Like I’ve said in the past, its ultimately the third parties who hold customers to using Windows than actually any policies by Microsof themselves – hence the, “developer, developer, developer” rant by Balmer. Developers ultimately create, hold and maintains Microsofts marketshare.
“Which means, one has to question the relationship between the organsiation who provided the hardware and software, and whether that relationship should continue. Put the supplier on the backfoot and make them realise who owes who a living.”
Easier said then done sometimes. For example, up until 3-4 years ago, the equipment used to design and program high tech IC’s was based on DOS. NT was required even though XP had been out for a few years..Windows 2000 would not even work. There are only 2 manufacturers that deal with that equipment. So if you want to stay in business, you deal with them.
But if these are specialist devices in a small industry, then maybe a significant number of the industry should get together to put pressure on the hardware companies to pull finger – basically bullying the company into submission.
“But if these are specialist devices in a small industry, then maybe a significant number of the industry should get together to put pressure on the hardware companies to pull finger – basically bullying the company into submission.”
Actually they are not specialized devices in a small industry. The industry is all electronics, including computers what these things go into.
I do agree with you though to an extent, the problem with “bullying” the only 2 companies that provide the software and equipment is then you also go out of business. Is a catch 22 situation. Besides, “bullying” would be too MS like
so far, defender has been useless for my brother – he was infected with malware, thats ok, ran the scanner, thats ok, it found it, cleared it, but it still remained; it never actually removed it!
Whats the point of bundling ‘defender’ if it fails to defend?
Failing to remove a particular malware doesn’t make Defender useless. Failing to remove any malware would. Some malware is just a tougher nut to crack than others, and if it is relatively new, there probably won’t be any programs capable of rooting it out completely.
Fun with semantics: I’d say the spot where Defender failed to defend was when it let the malware in in the first place rather than when it couldn’t remove it. Prevention ought to be easier to do (the instructions for preventing malware are never “reinstall windows”
).
delays begin…
In AD. You know, the simple things that take forever to propagate through the AD in complicated networks. Man if they could match the functionality of Netware from like 10 years ago, I would be happy with that.
“Driver problems are third party problems, along with software maintained by lazy, money hungry third party vendors who refuse to release updates. What Microsoft can do is make sure their products are up to snuff and then able to be stand on the high horse and condemn those vendors who don’t have their act together.”
I find it increasingly amusing how drivers is becoming an excuse for Microsoft’s poor products. When they are a Monopoly.
Microsoft make their money of a binary platform, and part of their success is down to backward compatibility. Why should anyone have to update their software for every new version.
The think I find most bizarre is that Linux is released every 2 1/2 months, Gnome every 6 months, X every 6 months(hopefully) etc etc. and they don’t have as much support from hardware vendors, 70,000 staff, Billions in the bank, or a monopoly.
Looking at 2006 Vista’s continuing problems, and what Microsoft have highlighted for SP1. I suspect that performance it the main reson for the delay.
The reality is though Windows Server 2009 is a large software product, an overrun of a few months is not unusual, or as we have seen a few years. The only question is there something fundamentally wrong, or have Microsoft simply had their planning off.
Edited 2007-07-11 05:50
I’m not seeing anyone excuse “Microsoft’s poor products” by pointing to “drivers”. In Vista, MS apparently changed the structure of the video APIs for DRM and security reasons, and nvidia and ATI didn’t adapt to it in time for general release, or months later. They had plenty of time to prepare, but they must have not seen the business case. A large majority of people blamed them, not Microsoft.
Part of their success is backward compatibility. Another is moving the ball forward. I think the majority of people that write and maintain software will update it to take advantage and/or work on the platform it is most used on. This goes for any software on any OS. Or you can run an emulator or VM I suppose.
No offense, but that reads as a non-sequitor. The BSDs are updated frequently too… ergo, why aren’t they in Microsoft’s position? Or Linux’s marketshare? I don’t think the connection between frequent CVS activity and world domination (or even fitness for a particular purpose) is that strong.
Maybe you meant, why doesn’t Microsoft update as frequently as Linux/BSD? Because: A. They are a bureaucratic behemoth. B. They don’t have to. C. It breaks things. D. They aren’t very/overly innovative. E. They are making piles of cash with whats already out. F. Oh yeah, they don’t have to.
The article is about a “launch date” being announced, not the release date changing. Yes, delaying the Server version of the Vista codebase by several months likely does have to do with getting Vista RTM weathered and fixed by millions of beta testers … errr .. customers.
I don’t think this launch date is a change in course. Vista was available to businesses about 2 months before it was on store shelves. This gave Microsoft one last chance to catch show-stoppers. This 2+ month difference between release and launch for Server 2008 is essentially the same thing.
Edited 2007-07-11 07:42 UTC
Poor drivers is more reaching than graphics drivers. Although I do love the fact that Microsoft’s *customers* do not decent *hardware* video performance due to DRM. Has Microsoft written a difficult to write for API, or is its management incapable of negotiating with with 3rd party suppliers, or is 70,000 employees not enough. The funny thing is your talking about graphics drivers for a *server*.
Has it been successful in moving the ball forward!? Even Dell are waning their own customers that the transition may not be easy. GNU is often criticized for not having a stable(sic) api, although personally I cannot see how an evolutionary approach is anything trivial, and we see this when due to long time between release dates. Things stop working. The bottom line is Microsoft business model relies on backward compatibility. Its a ridiculously difficult goal, that they actually are quite successful with, but are not 100% but this has *nothing* to do with software vendors, this development model *allows* them to support the lowest common denominator…and the more popular one . Microsoft built this rod for its own back…but its a very profitable one. It just makes their products both unstable; last years technology, competing with more compatible earlier versions of itself.
If you are arguing why the BSD kernel is less popular than Linux, becuase lets face it they both have a GNU userland. but this is simply off topic, and should be discussed elsewhere, but I suspect the answer is in the copyleft license of Linux, its larger popularity, and its amazing hardware support. GNU is not a monopoly…it is competing with one, what we can say is that it is being adopted, by both users and developers at an increasing rate.
To be actually honest I never mentioned it but I haven’t got a clue what the difference between a launch and a release date is.
There is only one date 2006 Vista was launched/released end of November 2006. Anything else is just a nonsense. Vista is an old OS now. It have a staggered distribution, but this is driven by Marketing. If you want to argue that this is a beta or a release candidate it should be named as such. The bottom line is they are delayed. I will argue that their development model is awful, but becuase of it, delays of a product of this size are to be expected.
Excuse me, but BSD don’t use GNU userland as you claim, it has its own userland.
“Excuse me, but BSD don’t use GNU userland as you claim, it has its own userland.”
Your excused. I didn’t realize that BSD had their own compiler now…or desktop, equivalent to samba etc etc. I’m sure they have stopped including all those other copyleft licenses now.
How about definining ‘userland’ before you open your mouth – then conflictions won’t occur.
Quote
“userland n. Anywhere outside the kernel. “That code belongs in
userland.” This term has been in common use among Linux kernel hackers
since at least 1997, and may have have originated in that community (a
sighting has been reported from the 1995 archives of a NetBSD mailing
list, however).” Source http://dict.die.net/userland/
I use the dictionary definition of userland. I didn’t think it needed another one.
The reality is what is defined of as an OS has changed its meaning. How does one *define* an OS in a world where 2006 Vista includes:
Kernel+GUI+Web Browser+Instant Messenger+Media Player+Media Center+Compositing+CD Burning etc etc
my GNU just looks like this
Linux+Xorg+XFCE+Firefox+XChat+Mplayer+Audacious+Beryl+MythTV+k3b
but it could have easily been
BSD+Directfb+KDE+Opera+Pigin+Xine+Amorak+Matisse+Freevo+Nero
Edited 2007-07-11 10:55
“Linux+Xorg+XFCE+Firefox+XChat+Mplayer+Audacious+Beryl+MythTV+k3b ”
You know X.org is not a GNU project and that it is BSD licensed, right?
And that neither XFCE, Firefox, XChat, MPlayer nor Audacity are GNU projects?
“You know X.org is not a GNU project and that it is BSD licensed, right?”
Its not its under the X11 License or MIT License
“And that neither XFCE, Firefox, XChat, MPlayer nor Audacity are GNU projects?”
Yes but oddly they all use the GNU License.
“Yes but oddly they all use the GNU License.”
No, they’re under the GPL license. GNU != GPL.
Most software released under the GPL aren’t GNU projects.
“No, they’re under the GPL license. GNU != GPL.
Most software released under the GPL aren’t GNU projects.”
GPL is short for “GNU General Public License”
reference http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html.
The license you can argue has been chosen for Linus’ tit-for-tat or Dicks four freedoms but its definitely a GNU License.
Edited 2007-07-11 13:45
@Soulbender
This is off-topic. Software used to be simpler. Back when Stallman cried because the OS wasn’t called GNU/Linux has gone becuase in reality, Linux was *the* killer bit of software in its own right…and still is, and can still be used in this basic way. The reality is the year of *Linux* was when it started to be used seriously in servers and again when it was adopted for embedded devices and again for…well you get the drift.
The year of GNU was when OpenOffice and Firefox became mainstream, neither projects from the FSF. Desktop GNU is here. Ubuntu not Debian made it mainstream. The kernel although an essential part of the OS is becoming an increasingly small part of it what people view as the OS, and apart from niche applications which include adobe products and hardcore gaming, GNU has everything. Even with servers manageability has made GNU more important.
On here it is pretty clear that the strongest supporters of BSD are 2006 Vista users, and often Linus supporters(sic). When they are anti-GPL, or in reality anti-copyleft. Look at the posts in the GPL3 sections…its madness. I still don’t get why they would care. Also Apples OS offering is often quoted wrongly as *NIX based becuase of its BSD kernel when in reality the Apple OS has precious little to do with BSD. Its also become very difficult to define what Linux is and those opposed to the adoption of Linux separate FSF from Linux kernel-developers, as GNU gains *Desktop* adoption.
I use GNU even though my experience of what once was Linux, owes nothing to the kernel, in fact it owes more to the Mozilla’s foundation and SUN. If I ran a *BSD the experience I would have of GNU assuming the hardware support was as good would be exactly the same. The days of Linux+applications has gone Linux is simply another tool that makes up the open-source/free software landcape.
The second reason is GPL3. The second Linus supported Tivoization. Linux become an inappropriate term for the OS I run. Which is modular and comes under a whole host of licenses the most popular being GPL. He actually made me care about the four freedoms. He’s absolutely right to choose whatever license he want for *his* software, but I do not care what kernel is running on an embedded device if it does not grant me the four freedoms…and those freedoms are actually what I care about on GNU. If I have an embedded device if I cannot change the userspace is the fact that it runs linux significant…possibly but it doesn’t describe the OS I know.
But again, Linus and his kernel are being increasingly marginalized, as Desktop GNU grows. With Solaris I have the choice of at least three kernels.
Edited 2007-07-11 13:34
“didn’t realize that BSD had their own compiler now”
They don’t.
“…or desktop, equivalent to samba etc etc.”
They don’t.
HOWEVER…
That’s not the point. The base system is, with the exception of GCC, not from GNU.
KDE, GNOME, Samba etc are 3rd party products.
You can run Oracle on Linux but that doesn’t mean Linux is closed source.
“That’s not the point. The base system is, with the exception of GCC, not from GNU.
KDE, GNOME, Samba etc are 3rd party products.
You can run Oracle on Linux but that doesn’t mean Linux is closed source.”
“base system” is pretty much the kernel and nothing else. In fact in a server environment, or an embedded one that pretty much what you want, and anything else is garbage. Its one of the main reason for the success of Linux in these arenas. The fact is GNU is modular, so *you* have the choice.
…but if you are *comparing* Windows Server 2008 you compare *apples* with *apples*. The fact that GNU comes with everything, and you have a choice of what you install and run. Are we comparing a fully featured product or one stripped to its bare essentials, but if we are down to the bear essentials we are pretty much discussing the kernel, *not* the userspace.
The Oracle example is a *good* one, becuase the *important* application is Oracle.
…but again KDE, GNOME, Samba etc all under the GNU license.
“base system” is pretty much the kernel and nothing else.”
Eh, no it isn’t. The base system, in BSD sense, is a fully functional system and functional development environment.
It includes compilers and development tools as well a X and a userland.
“The fact is GNU is modular, so *you* have the choice. ”
I think you’re confusing GNU with,uh, something else. Modular design, maybe? Modularity has nothing to do with GNU or the GPL though.
“Eh, no it isn’t. The base system, in BSD sense, is a fully functional system and functional development environment.
It includes compilers and development tools as well a X and a userland.”
Pick one, any door. I don’t care which. You *can* run(sic) BSD with very little else, but you *cannot* run BSD as a “functional system and functional development environment” without software under a whole multitude of Licenses. In fact do it.
Do my example just with software under the BSD License and add Compiler and development tools to the list.
Quote:
“modularity refers to development of a complex product (or process) from smaller subsystems that can be designed independently. As a concept, this definition includes modularity in programming.”
Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity
The trouble is you think your having a GNU/*BSD vs GNU/Linux discussion. I’m not; I’m talking about GNU
Edited 2007-07-11 13:58
I used the graphics driver for Vista as an *example* due to the fact the API has changed the most from XP. I could have talking about the networking interface. Its not funny if you realize Server 2008 and Vista share the same codebase… ? Obviously graphics on a server aren’t that important!
Of course MS has made advances between OS releases. To argue otherwise would be ridiculous.
I’m not.
Its been stated a few times in the thread. If you aren’t reading that your are missing the point .. which is essentially that there isn’t much of story here.
If you want to believe there wasn’t a release for business licenses in Nov 2006, and one for consumers in Jan 2007 you are just trumpeting your ignorance …
Your last sentence was ambiguous. I’m not going to restate anything I’ve said previously. It was logical, based on past evidence, and I stand by it.
“Of course MS has made advances between OS releases. To argue otherwise would be ridiculous.”
To be fair. I see very little advances, between XP and Vista, and many regressions. Certainly compatibility of hardware and software is down, as is performance
“If you want to believe there wasn’t a release for business licenses in Nov 2006, and one for consumers in Jan 2007 you are just trumpeting your ignorance …”
Thats the point I see *one* date and thats Nov 2006 in most of my posts. I call it 2006 Vista or “last years OS” simply because it is. I simply take the first date, because that is the first time it is in *real* use. You can play swicheroo with the dates as much as you like, but the first one was when Vista available, and its still not ready. We can play the date game as much as you like. I didn’t bring it up. I don’t really care. Its like your saying Business doesn’t matter, but home users do!? Vista is coming up to a year old.
That isn’t being fair. I’m not here to defend MS, but if this was an article about any other OS, and I saw overtly negative FUD, I would call it. Yeah, Vista isn’t a huge improvement, but it is superior in some ways. Of course the DRM (tilt bits!) is a serious regression. I run Win2K3 where I require Windows, even on my laptop (Open Licensing).
Wow. I’m not playing anything, I’m stating facts that 99 out of 100 people accept. Vista was available to businesses first, by quite a few weeks. Its not debatable. Remotely! What is your point again?
The article was about a launch date for Server 2008 … what are you on about?
“Wow. I’m not playing anything, I’m stating facts that 99 out of 100 people accept. Vista was available to businesses first, by quite a few weeks. Its not debatable. Remotely! What is your point again?
The article was about a launch date for Server 2008 … what are you on about?”
You brought up Vista. I fully accept it was launched to businesses first. I actually use business release date, because it emphasizes how beta Vista is now, so long after launch, and how all the problems have still not been fixed nearly a year later.
I think the only date that matters is *always* the earlier one, because thats when its used. In fact why would I care when its *launched*. I’m interested in when its available.
Off-topic
@kad77 I don’t know whether its confusion but. I think we are talking at cross purposes, and perhaps Its me truly showing my ignorance. Vista *unlike* Windows Server 2009 had as far as I was aware was made *available* to business back in November 2006. It had a business *launch* at the *same time*.
ref: launch
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39284507,00.htm
ref: consumer staggered launch
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/mar06/03-21WindowsVis…
It was made *available* to consumers and was *released* and had a launch in January 2007 at the same time. I have never argued to the contrary, but both launch and *availability* are the same date for both.
Now the argument for Vista Server is different. You are perhaps Arguing that Vista server will be “release to manufacturing” before launch which was slated for second half of 2007
source: http://mcpmag.com/news/rss.asp?editorialsid=1308
Its actually looking like the *end* on 2007, at the earliest, but RTM is the final release version, but the launch/release is later at the very end of February. 2 solid months into 2008.
source:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/17380
Vista by comparison was RTM 20days before launch/release. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/nov06/11-08VistaRT…
If server is on the same timeline RTM will be about February 7th 2008 as there is *NO* consumer launch/release.
Edited 2007-07-11 19:24
Yes, it seems we were talking past each other. If you were being a little ignorant, I was certainly being rude. Sorry!
Server 2008 is available in beta, and RTM probably late this year. It will be “launched” aka advertised later, probably due to MS needing extra time for its own products and larger vendors needing some extra time as well.
It doesn’t benefit MS or its largest third party vendors to have a system out without well tested software to run on it.
The business Vista was somewhat launched in Nov 06 (we got invited to a local MS office), but it wasn’t appealing to me so I didn’t attend. The server OS will likely bring security improvements (I’m sure my terminal servers would benefit) and admins will be well aware of the system without any launch.
It’s not like the MS local office pep rally is going to tell us anything we didn’t read or see already. Its just marketing…
The API’s were stable for well over a year; ATI and Nvidia chose not to allocate resources in favour of doing a cheaper thing – blame Microsoft for problems instead of taking on more engineers to share the load.
Its pretty easy; they’ve got VirtualPC, bundle that with a Windows XP Image, and voila, backwards compatibility.
Exactly the point I was making. Users rightly blamed the video card developers for their shortcomings. Apparently they care about the current Vista userbase just a hair more than the Linux userbase. But not much (as people tell me Vista ATI/nvidia drivers are still not up to par with XPs).
With so many people developing for JVM/.NET/Web 2.0(tm), I think the number of developers bound to Win32 (blech) is on a permanent decline anyway. Beyond Vista, “legacy” software will either be rewritten, die, or become transparently VM’d as you suggest.
I would wish one thing would happen in the IT world – that the bullcrap about Java, .NET and managed code, and if you’re a ‘real man’ you use unmanaged programming languages such as C and C++.
There is a constant reputation amoungst some programmers on this website, lying time and time again. Claiming that pointers aren’t available and yet, for someone like me who has a *very* basic understanding of this, I know there is references in java, and in .NET/C#, you can use a special ‘safe’ pointers if you need to.
The day when these ‘real men don’t use managed code’ die off, the sooner we’ll start to see companies embrace managed code as *THE* thing to do use for developing software – multiplatform applications based on platform independent frameworks.
I’d love to see, for example, people tell Adobe and Microsoft to go take a hike in favour of JavaFX which is opensource and available for all and sundry to embrace. For vendors, they need to look at the long term rather than short term.
There is a (without over exaggarating) market out there for people who don’t run Windows, who would love to purchase software – if Adobe tomorrow came out with a competely Creative Suite based on the Eclipse framework, I would pay for 3 releases up front! I know many Apple Mac users who would instantly switch to a commodity PC with *NIX if they could run alll the applications.
It makes me annoyed when I see vendors blame Microsoft when in reality, it is the vendors (software and hardware) by refusing to support alternative platforms, they by default prop up Microsofts monopoly.
True. I remember when I was at polytech learning Active Directory – talk about the worst thing I ever saw – this was on a top machine, quad core, 4GB ram, less than 20 people trying to replicate.
It took so long, and I’m not exaggarating this, I could go down to the local cafe, pick up a capacino, then back – a good 15-20minutes away, and find it had just finished.
To say its better than what was before, sure, but goodness, there is eDirectory and JES Directory Server which does the job alot better than Active Directory.
“It took so long, and I’m not exaggarating this, I could go down to the local cafe, pick up a capacino, then back – a good 15-20minutes away, and find it had just finished. ”
Sounds like that server was screwed,, I have never seen an DC act like that unless the system was buggered beyond belief. Good thing you did the right thing and blamed Windows instead of your Admin, or it may have GASP!! got fixed
Maybe a spybot sweep is in order, or the admin shouldn’t be running bit torrent on it then?
For what it’s worth, if you’re tied to AD by the operating system only, you can use eDirectory on windows. Between that and a properly configured zenworks environment, your users wouldn’t even notice the difference.
Windows 2000 RTM’d on Dec 15, 1999 and launched on Feb. 17th, 2000. The launch pattern for 2008 is no different and is nothing new for Microsoft.
People seem to think that if someone points to the problems, it’s a third party problem.
Weird, given the fact that almost all parts in open source projects _are_ 3rd party things and did we notice that the problems we see with MS on these things generally don’t happen with open source projects?
If you think a little bit longer, you will have to agree that if a third party piece of software kills stuff, there is something wrong with the model you use.
I am 100% sure that if windows wold be open souce, it would be less susceptible to the kind of ugly disasters you generally see when you build your machines.
Probably not something some people want to hear. Easier to blame third party makers.
Interesting. I wonder if Server 2008 is still a warmed over version of a desktop OS, or have they actually removed Outlook Express and Media player? What in the world were they thinking when they put client applications in a server? Did they try to save time/money by using the XP code base for a server?
A server doesn’t even need a graphical interface, much less a media player. If Microsoft wants to get serious in the server world, they need to dump the garbage they currently are flooding the market with and start from scratch. Bandaids won’t help a bleeding leg stump…do an analysis of the number and severity of security vulnerabilities in Server 2003 for the past three years. Why anyone would base an enterprise on this garbage is beyond me.